|
|
|
|
|
||
| Moderated by: jpierce | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
brad9point0 Regular Member
|
Well unfortunately I cannot go in to detail, because of an impending criminal complaint.... I am trying to find the law regarding open carry of unloaded shotguns. Apparently my local police department has a problem with UOC (and eye sight) and decided to seize my handgun as "evidence" so I want to make sure that this one is "visible". Can anyone point me in the direction of the section of the law that covers shotgun carry? Thanks!!! |
|||||||||
|
SmokeaCigShootaSig Regular Member
|
Im sure its legal, but I'd be ready to get stopped an awful lot. The OC SD tried taking 5 of my handguns that were in an unlocked case as "evidence"... and I asked for what crime, the reply was "unlawful transport". long story short and an hour later... they let me go, with my guns. ::Cheers:: |
|||||||||
|
bigtoe416 Regular Member 
|
12001. (a) (1) As used in this title, the terms "pistol," "revolver," and "firearm capable of being concealed upon the person" shall apply to and include any device designed to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled a projectile by the force of any explosion, or other form of combustion, and that has a barrel less than 16 inches in length. These terms also include any device that has a barrel 16 inches or more in length which is designed to be interchanged with a barrel less than 16 inches in length. 12025. (a) A person is guilty of carrying a concealed firearm when he or she does any of the following: (1) Carries concealed within any vehicle which is under his or her control or direction any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person. (2) Carries concealed upon his or her person any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person. (3) Causes to be carried concealed within any vehicle in which he or she is an occupant any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person. There is no explicit shotgun carry section. Shotguns and long rifles fall under the unconcealable group provided that the barrel is at least 16 inches in length. So do whatever you want with your shotgun, stick it in your car, put it under a trench coat, throw it over your shoulder, walk next to a school. Just don't load it (put shells inside the shotgun) or walk onto school grounds or into a public building (post office, police station, etc.) and you'll be okay. Last edited on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 05:54 pm by bigtoe416 |
|||||||||
|
M198 Regular Member
|
Whoa, lets hold on here. ANY firearm must be in a locked container if you are within 1000' of a K-12 school. Do not carry near a school, handgun or long gun. Shotguns must have at least an 18" barrel and must be 26" overall. |
|||||||||
|
camsoup Regular Member
|
M198 wrote: Whoa, lets hold on here. ANY firearm must be in a locked container if you are within 1000' of a K-12 school. Do not carry near a school, handgun or long gun. Shotguns must have at least an 18" barrel and must be 26" overall. CA school zone law only covers handguns and firearms capable of being concealed on the person. It specifically says that it does not prohibit the otherwise lawful transportation of any other firearms.... The FEDERAL gun free school zone act, does limit ALL guns within 1000' of a school. Two different Gun free school zone acts. I guess the question is can a city/county/state LEO charge you for the Federal crime of carrying a long arm within 1000' of a school? |
|||||||||
|
M198 Regular Member
|
Error on the side of caution. camsoup wrote: M198 wrote:Whoa, lets hold on here. ANY firearm must be in a locked container if you are within 1000' of a K-12 school. Do not carry near a school, handgun or long gun. Shotguns must have at least an 18" barrel and must be 26" overall. Last edited on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 07:51 pm by M198 |
|||||||||
|
bigtoe416 Regular Member
|
The Federal Law is unconstitutional and was ruled as such in United States v. Lopez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez). Congress repassed the law after Lopez with the addition of a few words saying that they had the power thanks to the commerce clause. Except the court ruled they didn't have the power because the tie between the possession of a firearm inside a school zone is too tenuous of a connection to affecting interstate commerce. The very first sentence of the "Held" portion of the Lopez ruling is "The Act exceeds Congress' Commerce Clause authority." It doesn't get much clearer than that. They go on to say, "...the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce." Therefore I carry unlocked long rifles within 1000' of schools and don't worry at all about being prosecuted for it. I highly recommend everybody do the same since the Judicial system of our government has invalidated that law. Here is the entire opinion: http://supreme.justia.com/us/514/549/case.html Last edited on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 10:56 pm by bigtoe416 |
|||||||||
|
CA_Libertarian State Researcher 
|
bigtoe416 wrote: The Federal Law is unconstitutional and was ruled as such in United States v. Lopez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez). Congress repassed the law after Lopez with the addition of a few words saying that they had the power thanks to the commerce clause. Except the court ruled they didn't have the power because the tie between the possession of a firearm inside a school zone is too tenuous of a connection to affecting interstate commerce. +1... with an exception Since the law was reenacted, you can still be charged with it, and it could possibly require another trip to SCOTUS to overturn your conviciton. I don't find it hard to imagine a cop, DA, judge, and jury all ignoring the fact the US Congress is trying to circumvent the judicial review process. So, keep in mind there are some added risks when you're "on the radar." |
|||||||||
|
bigtoe416 Regular Member
|
CA_Libertarian wrote: +1... with an exception I seriously hope the very first judge would dismiss the case based on Lopez. If not then I'd immediately lose all hope for the judicial system. |
|||||||||
|
CA_Libertarian State Researcher
|
bigtoe416 wrote: I seriously hope the very first judge would dismiss the case based on Lopez. If not then I'd immediately lose all hope for the judicial system. What is this "hope" thing of which you speak? I hope you brought enough for the rest of the class. |
|||||||||
|
AyatollahGondola Regular Member 
|
I have OC'd my shotgun several times around here. I will be doing it again. But keep in mind you must be transporting your firearm for a lawful purpose. Just driving around with it with no purpose at the ready may bring you mounds of grief in the way of defense atty fees. officer: Where are you going? You: To (or from) my business or You: To a friends house who is going to look at my shotgun or You: North Asking for trouble would be: Officer: Where are you going? You: nowhere in particular or You: to baskin robbins for ice cream |
|||||||||
|
Sons of Liberty Regular Member 
|
AyatollahGondola wrote: I have OC'd my shotgun several times around here. I will be doing it again. But keep in mind you must be transporting your firearm for a lawful purpose. Just driving around with it with no purpose at the ready may bring you mounds of grief in the way of defense atty fees. It would seem to me that a lawful purpose is any purpose that is not unlawful, including no purpose. The codes specify what is unlawful and everything else is lawful. What is the unlawful purpose that I am being charged with? Having no purpose is not unlawful. Or am I missing something??  |
|||||||||
|
AyatollahGondola Regular Member
|
Sons of Liberty wrote: AyatollahGondola wrote:I have OC'd my shotgun several times around here. I will be doing it again. But keep in mind you must be transporting your firearm for a lawful purpose. Just driving around with it with no purpose at the ready may bring you mounds of grief in the way of defense atty fees. Yes sir, You're missing this part: Attorney fee$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Nothing wrong with seeing the plain language of the law...or code if you will. Practicing it on an empty wallet is another matter though. In this case, you still open carry, but without adding to your defensive load in court. It's "yes I was carrying it for a lawful purpose", as opposed to "bring on the charges". The point I was making is, have your lawful purpose in mind. In fact, practice it so it is second nature. Do you really want to spend 2K of your money proving that your carrying it to baskin robbins was not unlawful, or would you rather spend zero or 500.00 proving you were actually headed to your friends house to show him your shotgun, and you thought you'd bring ice cream as a friendly gesture? |
|||||||||
|
Sons of Liberty Regular Member
|
AyatollahGondola wrote: Sons of Liberty wrote:AyatollahGondola wrote:I have OC'd my shotgun several times around here. I will be doing it again. But keep in mind you must be transporting your firearm for a lawful purpose. Just driving around with it with no purpose at the ready may bring you mounds of grief in the way of defense atty fees. I disagree. The code does not indicate that I must articulate to an LEO the purpose of my carry. The LEO must prove the unlawful purpose of my carry. Since I do not carry for unlawful purposes, I do not have anything to gain by opening my mouth and having my words used against me. If we live in a society where law-abiding citizens must explain to an LEO how it is we are keeping the law and if we don't explain - we get arrested, then I say our government has crossed the line drawn in the sand by our forefathers! How much is our freedom worth??? It's priceless! |
|||||||||
|
AyatollahGondola Regular Member
|
I disagree. The code does not indicate that I must articulate to an LEO the purpose of my carry. The LEO must prove the unlawful purpose of my carry. Since I do not carry for unlawful purposes, I do not have anything to gain by opening my mouth and having my words used against me. No, the code doesn't say you have to articulate your lawful purpose. You'd be doing that to a judge or jury. If you're articulating to either of those, you've pretty much spent 2K or more already. I'm keeping the money in my wallet and telling the cops what they need to hear to get both of us back on our merry ways |
|||||||||
|
Citizen Founder's Club Member
|
Not to be a pest, but the statements above about the law need cites, and links and quotes if possible. It cuts down on misunderstandings. And lets the person see for himself what the law actually says. Its in the forum rules: 7) If you state a rule of law, it is incumbant upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when avaiable, is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc. |
|||||||||
|
Sons of Liberty Regular Member
|
AyatollahGondola wrote: I disagree. The code does not indicate that I must articulate to an LEO the purpose of my carry. The LEO must prove the unlawful purpose of my carry. Since I do not carry for unlawful purposes, I do not have anything to gain by opening my mouth and having my words used against me. Let's just say I was arrested because I was carrying my unloaded legally configured shotgun around in my truck. I am a law-abiding citizen and have not been involved in criminal activity. And I refused to answer questions invoking my 5th amendment right. (Cite: U.S. Constitution "...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...") What would I be charged with? How could a judge compel me to testify against myself? |
|||||||||
|
ccwinstructor Centurion Member
|
bigtoe416 wrote: 12001. (a) (1) As used in this title, the terms "pistol," "revolver," and "firearm capable of being concealed upon the person" shall apply to and include any device designed to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled a projectile by the force of any explosion, or other form of combustion, and that has a barrel less than 16 inches in length. These terms also include any device that has a barrel 16 inches or more in length which is designed to be interchanged with a barrel less than 16 inches in length. I admit to not having read the California code recently. I recall something about the legislature giveing the police authority to stop anyone with a gun in order to examine it to make sure it is unloaded. Am I correct, or has this rule been superceded or perhaps there are exceptions that I am unaware of? |
|||||||||
|
stuckinchico Regular Member 
|
As far as im concerned its unlawful.. Unless of course i missed the news flash that California succeeded from the Union... However there is a law that does state that. However i do have the opportunity to challenge it on the 17th as Far as it is the grounds for my detention. I am still trying to figure out where CAL APPS gets off over ruling a US SUPREME Court ruling that has yet to be challenged or overturned. ANd it my understanding, correct me if I am wrong but the lower courts must follow it superiors |
|||||||||
|
AyatollahGondola Regular Member
|
Sons of Liberty wrote: AyatollahGondola wrote:I disagree. The code does not indicate that I must articulate to an LEO the purpose of my carry. The LEO must prove the unlawful purpose of my carry. Since I do not carry for unlawful purposes, I do not have anything to gain by opening my mouth and having my words used against me. You could be charged with any one of many code violations that an officer felt that the circumstances dictated. Even disturbing the peace. You could remain silent before the police, and the judge or jury, however they would then make up their minds on your charges with the evidence presented by witnesses and the prosecutor. The way I see a judge or jury, they cannot say you had a lawful purpose if you don't declare one. |
|||||||||
|
nukechaser Regular Member 
|
AyatollahGondola wrote:
That's odd, I read on my local PD's website that an officer's peace cannot be disturbed and that someone other than the officer would have to sign a complaint. The reference to PC 415 on Elk Grove PD's site can be found at: http://www.elkgrovepd.org/more/faq-quality-life.asp#q07 I believe Rancho Cordova PD says the same? |
|||||||||
|
AyatollahGondola Regular Member
|
nukechaser wrote: AyatollahGondola wrote: The police usually respond because of a complaint. With all the anti-gun people is California, who's to say someone wouldn't sign a complaint? I wasn't predicting that charge by the way. Just giving an example. Another one would be that someone charging they were threatened by your actions. You know; "So you felt threatened by the man with the gun as he neared you ma'am?" Not every cop wants to arrest you for a gun violation, so give them reason not to. |
|||||||||
|
Sons of Liberty Regular Member
|
AyatollahGondola wrote: Sons of Liberty wrote:AyatollahGondola wrote:I disagree. The code does not indicate that I must articulate to an LEO the purpose of my carry. The LEO must prove the unlawful purpose of my carry. Since I do not carry for unlawful purposes, I do not have anything to gain by opening my mouth and having my words used against me. I invoke my 5th amendment rights on this thread!  |
|||||||||
|
cato Regular Member 
|
Too much fud in this thread to even begin to address it all nothing to see here folks move along move along  To begin with shotguns are probably the legally safest firearms to possess under CA law. It goes get a little ambiguous in school zones however if one is on foot (unloaded in cars being transported are more clearly OK). Last edited on Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 07:17 am by cato |
|||||||||
|
NightOwl Regular Member
|
AyatollahGondola wrote: Sons of Liberty wrote:AyatollahGondola wrote:I disagree. The code does not indicate that I must articulate to an LEO the purpose of my carry. The LEO must prove the unlawful purpose of my carry. Since I do not carry for unlawful purposes, I do not have anything to gain by opening my mouth and having my words used against me. What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? If they can't prove you were up to an unlawful purpose, despite suspicions, shouldn't that result in a not guilty verdict? I'm not sure that having an unloaded firearm would satisfy the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. They should have to PROVE that you have an unlawful purpose. Except that it's california. I guess you have a point, but everywhere else it wouldn't convict, I don't think. |
|||||||||
|
Thundar Regular Member 
|
AyatollahGondola wrote: I have OC'd my shotgun several times around here. I will be doing it again. But keep in mind you must be transporting your firearm for a lawful purpose. Just driving around with it with no purpose at the ready may bring you mounds of grief in the way of defense atty fees. Better Solution: Officer Where are you going? Me: Am I being detained? Officer: No - Walk away or Officer: Yes - Give up nothing and remain silent. It can only be used against you. Live Free or Die, Thundar PS: Long Gun Open Carry (LGOC) RULES! I guess it has to be ULGOC in Kali. |
|||||||||
|
Felid`Maximus Activist Member 
|
Would there be anything illegal about a pump-action shotgun in this configuration without a butt stock in California, given that it has a barrel length greater than 18 inches to get it out of the "unconventional pistol" category?  Last edited on Mon Aug 10th, 2009 02:43 am by Felid`Maximus |
|||||||||
|
AyatollahGondola Regular Member
|
If I remember correctly, the pistol grip makes it illegal now even if the barrel is 18" or over |
|||||||||
|
wewd Regular Member 
|
Shotguns cannot be shorter than 26" overall and rifles no shorter than 30" overall in California. That includes folding/telescoping stocks in their shortest position. Pistol grip doesn't matter on a pump gun. It only matters on semiauto shotguns, where you cannot have both a folding/telescoping stock AND a pistol grip on the gun (think like the SPAS-12 or Benelli M4). Either feature alone is fine though. But that's only on semiautos, not pumps. As long as the gun came from the factory with the pistol grip installed and is longer than 26" it's perfectly legal here. |
|||||||||